In neomutt I opted to customize the print function. So if I “print” an attachment, it launches a script that runs wkhtmltopdf inside firejail --net=none followed by rendering in Firefox (also inside firejail --net=none), so I get an instant isolated firefox view as well as a PDF.
I would like to know what the trick is to make it work. I ran lynx… ah, shit… you said links not lynx. So I guess JavaScript is still in play.
I doubt it. Well, I have a laptop with dead LCD backlight which could perhaps be an always-on headless server with an SSD. But the uplink would have to be a GSM modem on a prepaid plan. I guess it’s feasible if the constantly running tor machinery is lean enough on the network. Not sure I can take on another project.
I suppose you could even say text-based clients are at a disadvantage because when we opt to render the HTML graphically, a full-blown browser is launched which is likely less hardened than something like whatever profile and engine Thunderbird embeds.
In my case I created a firejailed browser with --net=none so I could hit a certain key binding to launch the neutered browser to render an HTML attachment in a forced-offline context— but I was too fucking lazy to dig up what keys I bound to that which is why I (almost?) got burnt.
I don’t think so because it would have to involve deliberate deception. (source)
The first customer to enounter the problem could send a registered letter to the vendor and then a second customer could perhaps later use the 1st customer’s letter to prove the vendor knew about the defect. The vendor would then perhaps try to argue that they did not know a particular customer was vulnerable to the defect. I don’t imagine that the debate could unfold in a chargeback dispute. A bank that is less consumer friendly than what you have in the US and UK would probably say it’s not obvious fraud.
Note as well fraud legally requires 5 components to all be present. I think 3 of them are: deception, someone must profit, someone must be damaged, … and I forgot the other two components.
That would indeed be the practical answer assuming he has a credit card with those protections. Credit cards not issued in the US or UK often lack chargeback protections in non-fraud situations.
Note as well that even in the US the chargeback merely moves the money back to the consumer and does not affect legal obligations. If AXS were motivated, they could sue the customer in that case and likely point to a contract that indemnifies them from software defects and incompatibilities.
I think most banks have a threshold where they eat the loss. I did a chargeback once for around ~$20 or 30. Then I found out that the bank’s cost of investigating the chargeback exceeds something like $50, so the bank just takes the hit instead of the merchant. I found that a bit disturbing because a malicious or reckless merchant has no risk on small transactions. But in the case at hand for $200, the bank would likely clawback the money from AXS.
!smartphone_required@lemmy.sdf.org captures these kinds of cases. @FoxyFerengi@lemm.ee, if you know of any situations where your prof faced difficulty for not having a smartphone, consider posting about it there.
Ah, interesting point. I didn’t realise the devs were Russian. That might explain this issue as well:
https://github.com/osmandapp/OsmAnd/issues/15927
OSMand is so glitchy and crash prone it would be useful to know which features are more inclined to hog resources, since resource insufficiency seems to be the reason for crashes. Things like the animation boolean and Kalman filter. I’m not sure if I should avoid those features.
For one person it crashes on long routes. For me a long route is more likely to have crashes just because the app must run for longer. My workaround is to save every route as a track before starting, so every time it crashes I don’t have to wait to recalculate the route (but I have to keep my eyes on the screen).
Thanks for the tip. The info would be gone now but I’ll try that next time it happens.
It’s not a balance. About half the web still works from the Tor network. Also, Tor is not a DDoS threat to clearnet sites. There are only a few hundred exit nodes which work as a bottleneck to such attacks. The Tor network itself would suffer before a moderately competent target would fall.
A site calling itself "open data” should obviously be among the half of the world’s websites which function for Tor visitors.
And the fact that it cannot function even as an archive.org mirror, I must say it takes a special talent to be so incapable of being accessible. Most websites are reachable as archives.
Yes, but a scam is normally something that baits someone into a situation they fall prey to. The US credit system is certainly that, but it also exploits unwilling people who have no intent of taking the bait. That is, we cannot opt-out of the credit bureaus collecting data on us even if we try.
I figured the power consumption of multiple parallel decodings would increase but it would be negligable if limited to occur during channel browsing. If you settle on a signal for 2 min, it could revert to 1 channel.
A more crude improvement would be trivial: simply continue playing the previous buffer during the 3 second gap, but update the display instantly to show the user that their command was received and acted on. The 3 second gap could also be a fade-out to give an audible signal that the channel change command is in motion. The linux app “Clementine” does some of this. When you click the stop button, it does not stop the music instantly but does a fade out.
DJs sometimes have to switch to something else quickly with no time to beat match. It’s not a good situation but their method of choice seems to be a rapid cross-fade, as opposed to a sharp and sudden discrete switch. That slight smoothness helps. With a small buffer the two channels could even slow one channel and speed up the other to do an automatic beat match and cross-fade a bit more smoothly. I would not be surprised if there were some FOSS libs that already provide this sort of thing.
(edit) I should note as well that there is one station that has a very low level so you have to double the volume to match any other station. A device that fades during transitions could normalize the level differences without the user even knowing the differences are there.
I’m not sure what data breaches you’re referring to. The data that makes it into the credit file is not generally due to a breach¹. Every “member” of a credit bureau is free to share info with the credit bureau. Those members (which are generally banks, insurance companies, creditors) usually put in their privacy policy some vague verbiage about sharing with credit bureaus.
If you mean breaches of the credit bureau, like what happened with Equifax, I don’t believe a US court would view the breach itself as quantifiable provable damage to every consumer. I think there would only be (court-recognized) damage if the data were actually exploited in a way that costs you money.
¹ Although I say unlawfully exfiltrated data would unlikely make it onto the credit report, I cannot know for certain precisely because the credit bureau conceals the info source. That’s the reason we would want the law enforced. If CRAs were to share the source info, we would be able to separate the sources we have agreements with from those we don’t, and possibly chase up the sources we did not authorize to investigate where the data came from, which very well could have a supply chain that leads to the black market, a ransom attack, etc.
Yeah, I could get some counciling for that problem. Then the invoice from the counselor would be evidence for court. I should probably also buy a CD by Mika, with that song “Relax, Take it Easy” as a destressor. Then bring that receipt to court as well.
update: FWIW, they did not comply to the written request.
I think the law only requires them to comply with opt-out requests when consumers follow the opt-out procedure. Which in my case is a problem.
Accounts and digital assets seem directly applicable to assets held.
And? Holding assets does not in itself trigger tax. Esp. how they are held. Whether your $100 is in a banknote or $100 in gold coins or Second Life game money, or $100 in a cheese wheel, in the absence of a transaction there’s no tax to speak of.
W.r.t accounts, it’s just foriegn accounts they want to know about, not domestic accounts. Walk me through the tax difference between the two (not interest, not cap gains, just having the account).
Occupation sounds like it could have to do with tax credits, if you’re in something that’s subsidised.
If that’s the case, that’s declared on a form that actually has effects on figures, which is not what I’m talking about. That would be an enumeration with a code that discretely assigns an activity from a list to an outcome. If you look at the signature box of the 1040, that’s just a freehand field. You can write “contractor” there or any number of vague things without affecting subsidies. I’m specifically talking about information that does not affect the figures.
Residence is weird but in the opposite way, because usually countries don’t tax residents abroad. 'Murca is the exception there, although I don’t know all the exact details.
Residence indeed affects the figures (whether you are inside or outside the US), but that’s already accounted for by the forms being submitted and the data on them. When a form arbitarily has a field for country of residence and that field in no way affects the figures, it’s extraneous info. Just a data collection that makes no difference to the bottom line. I just had a look at the 1116 form. Whether you write USA or Japan on the residence field makes no difference whatsoever in the in the calculation. You can write anything on that line and it does not change the calculation AFAICT.
Off the top of my head I recall questions about the taxpayer’s occupation, whether foreign bank accounts are held by the taxpayer and whether any digital assets are held. I think some forms (1116, perhaps) ask for country of residence but IIRC this has no influence on the calculations.
I asked them in writing. It will be interesting to see if they comply.
To be clear, the purpose of the post is to understand the law (the forum being !law_us) because I want to fix this problem for everyone not just myself. I believe these digital rights abuses are so rampant because so few people step up to the plate to fix the problem for everyone. Most people just pragmatically fix the problem for themselves and move on. I want to understand the law to get an idea of the legal actionablity so that I can work out whether I have a pathway to force the CU to make their workflow with all customers legally compliant – which would be a process I can recycle with other similar data abusers (other banks).
I blame Taylor Swift, telling people to “shake, shake, shake it off…” instead of fighting back.
When I visit the opt-out website and it simply prints on the screen “403 Forbidden”. No reason given¹. No recourse given. That is not giving opportunity. When they conceal the URL from some demographics of people, that is also withholding an opportunity to opt-out.
Let’s suppose the opt-out procedure were completely disclosed and fully transparent. Suppose they sent a properly formed email that reveals the opt-out procedure to everyone (inluding those with text-based MUAs). If they were to outright state something like “you must use our preferred network (clearnet, not Tor, not VPN, not CGNAT), you must share your personal IP address with a 3rd party with no expectation of privacy, and you must solve a series of CAPTCHA tests after traversing our cookie wall.” That would still be giving exclusive opportunity. IOW, not everyone has opportunity, just those who are both willing and able to dance for them. When strings are attached to the opt-out, that “opportunity” is conditional. I believe the law would have to specifically state that conditional opportunity is permissable. Otherwise the only valid interpretation of law (IIUC) is that the opportunity be unconditional. Hence my question.
If you believe arbitrarily conditional opportunity is lawful, what’s your limit? What if the procedure requires driving to a remote location, crossing a river with crockodiles, and running through an area with snakes and scorpions in order to reach a form (written in a blend of Mandarin and Apache) that you must fill out requesting an opt-out? Would you still regard that as giving opportunity?
¹ When I say that they are blocking people who are on the Tor network, that is merely my guess. A “403 Forbidden” can manifest for many reasons and in this case the site does not state why a 403 was pushed. But regardless of their undisclosed reason, when they lock someone out of their gate, it is of course denying opportunity to opt out.
I’ve had varying degrees of success with urlscan and urlview
But the point of the thread is punish bad senders with legal actions regardless.